In my view, this is closely tied to the question: to which degree are differences in income or wealth unfair?

I think one justification for diverting from a flat tax is that those who are better of are so for unfair reasons.

It is hard to assess the degree of unfairness for single individuals. But on a societal level, it is easy to identify these sources.

Here are some major examples of sources of unfairness in wealth and income:

(1) Intelligence, which has a large genetic component.
(2) Inheritance
(3) Educational competence of parents

For example, when it comes to taxing inhheritance, I think the fair share would be 100% taxation. I believe that it would be unwise to implement such a taxation (for other reasons), but inheriting wealth is unfair nonetheless.

Of course, even very dumb people without any inheritance and with very incompetent parents may become very rich. But by and large, the three factors listed above make it much more likely and easy. At the same time, they are result of bias (natures bias, your parents bias).

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 1):For example, when it comes to taxing inhheritance, I think the fair share would be 100% taxation. I believe that it would be unwise to implement such a taxation (for other reasons), but inheriting wealth is unfair nonetheless.

But, if you tax inheritance becasuse its unfair, you discourage investment, growth, savings, etc. A tax on inheritance will curtail economuic growth. And, by the way, I don't accept the premise that inheriting wealth is unfair.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 1): to which degree are differences in income or wealth unfair?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):Fair share in any common endeavour is in opposition to equal share and implies that everybody pitches in according to his or her ability to do so.

Which is Marxist in nature, which we know does not work in practice.

For the record, I do agree that those that are wealthy (definition to be determined) should pay more. They do reap the benefits of the society they live and do business in. They enjoy working in a robust (usually) economy protected by the world's most powerful military. But, at what point, do we say that these people or entities have given enough.

We've all seen the numbers...the top wage earners in the US pay the vast majority of taxes. The top 10% pay almost 70% and the top 25% pay a little over 86%. Isn't that a 'fair share'?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
We've all seen the numbers...the top wage earners in the US pay the vast majority of taxes. The top 10% pay almost 70% and the top 25% pay a little over 86%. Isn't that a 'fair share'?

It's not fair, but it's the price you pay when much of your population is slowly being driven into poverty. The majority of working class American's are taking perpetual pay/benefit cuts, so they have less taxable income. Meanwhile, all those pay/benefit cuts are going into the pockets of those top 10%, so they have more taxable income.

It's always funny how conservatives are worried about the government transferring wealth, but in reality the most massive wealth transfer in history from the middle class to the wealthy class has been going on for 30 years now. As long as the wealth and income gaps grow wider, our tax system will continue to grow progressively more unfair.

We could have a vastly more fair tax system and lower tax rates (things conservatives want!), if our income gap wasn't so grotesquely large. However, with a growing income and wealth gap, our tax system will grow ever more unfair.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
We've all seen the numbers...the top wage earners in the US pay the vast majority of taxes. The top 10% pay almost 70% and the top 25% pay a little over 86%. Isn't that a 'fair share'?

It will not be considered fair by certain people until they pay 100%. Then you have the lovely situation where the majority of the population (i.e the voting base) does not pay much of anything, and a subjugated few pay for it all.

You have two competing considerations. One is the populist position of weighting the tax system as much towards a voting minority as possible, so that you can buy votes with other people's money. The second is the problem that unless all voters have to pay at least SOME tax, you increase the likelihood that they will vote irresponsibly.

And I'm not talking about sales tax (which is local/state), payroll taxes and medicare deductions. Those don't go into the general fund - those people who don't pay income tax don't have any skin in the game in regards to national defence, Solyndra, Farm subsidies, etc. That argument is BS. EVERYONE should pay income tax, even if its only a few hundred dollars, and your tax refund should never be more than what you pay in (this happens very often)

Already among developed nations, the US has just about the most "progressive" tax system there is, according to OECD. When Obama talks about "the rich are not paying their fair share", he is blatantly lying. It's just red meat for idiots.

That is the reason why I said that I think that it would be unwise to implement a 100% tax. So, I agree with you here.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3): And, by the way, I don't accept the premise that inheriting wealth is unfair.

Here, I disagree. It is not a premise, it follows from the definition of fairness. If someone inherits a big fortune, this is an unbelievably big bias in favor of this person, usually created by her/his parents. The wealth is not earned, no other person would have been able to achieve it.

Only indirectly. If you ast for the fair share, you must ask why it could be unfair that person a has more than person b. And that is where genetics come into play. Some people were very badly treated by nature, and that it a source of unfairness.

To be clear: I am not sure if a fully fair taxing system is possible or even desirably. I am just trying to respond to your question of what would be a fair share.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 1):For example, when it comes to taxing inhheritance, I think the fair share would be 100% taxation.

So if you have two people that stumble upon, let's say, $5 million in life, and one of them blows it all away in prostitutes and cocaine while another one invests it wisely in a business and creates jobs, ending up with more than $5 million, the first one gets taxed at 0% when he dies (because he blew it all up his nose and has nothing left) while the second one gets taxed at 100% (because he acted responsibly). That is your definition of "fair"? Live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse, is that what you are saying?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 4):It's always funny how conservatives are worried about the government transferring wealth, but in reality the most massive wealth transfer in history from the middle class to the wealthy class has been going on for 30 years now.

So letting someone keep more of his wealth is somehow "wealth transfer"? And it has never occurred to you that the increasing gap could, potentially, be due merely to the fact that we are now competing in a global economy and the idea that you will be making $50 an hour plus benefits with a high-school diploma and no skills is a thing of the past?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 7):Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 1):
For example, when it comes to taxing inhheritance, I think the fair share would be 100% taxation.

So if you have two people that stumble upon, let's say, $5 million in life, and one of them blows it all away in prostitutes and cocaine while another one invests it wisely in a business and creates jobs, ending up with more than $5 million, the first one gets taxed at 0% when he dies (because he blew it all up his nose and has nothing left) while the second one gets taxed at 100% (because he acted responsibly). That is your definition of "fair"? Live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse, is that what you are saying?

No, I am saying that it is unfair if person A inherits a fortune just because of someone's biased choice while another person B has no chance to compete with person A for getting the fortune. A and B do not have the same chances to receive the wealth, that is the issue. A is rich because of the biased act of will of her/his parents. That is the unfair aspect.

Ethically, this has nothing to do with how the parents behaved before they died. So I think your example confuses two independent things: (1) How does somebody spend his legitimately earned money? (2) What do we think about money that is not earned but was received by means of a biased procedure?

And, just as a reminder, I am not suggesting to implement a 100% inheritance tax. I agree that this would create behaviors that are not desirable for society as a whole. All I am saying is that implementing a 100% inheritance tax would be fair. So, the practical imperative would be "Tax heritages as much as you can while keeping negative side-effects in mind."

I didn't say that. I said cutting the pay/benefits of the worker and then handing that money to the CEO, is wealth transfer.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 7):And it has never occurred to you that the increasing gap could, potentially, be due merely to the fact that we are now competing in a global economy and the idea that you will be making $50 an hour plus benefits with a high-school diploma and no skills is a thing of the past?

Certainly that's part of the issue, but cutting taxes on the wealthy isn't going to fix that problem. If some kid in China is willing to work for 10 cents an hour, giving the CEO of GE a tax cut won't fix that problem.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):The second is the problem that unless all voters have to pay at least SOME tax, you increase the likelihood that they will vote irresponsibly.

What does it mean to vote irresponsibly? Warren Buffet pays millions in taxes, yet he supports raising taxes on the wealthy. Does he vote irresponsibly?

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 6):
Here, I disagree. It is not a premise, it follows from the definition of fairness. If someone inherits a big fortune, this is an unbelievably big bias in favor of this person, usually created by her/his parents. The wealth is not earned, no other person would have been able to achieve it.

The wealth was most certainly earned - perhaps not by the person who inherited it, but it was earned. Who has a better right to a person's residual wealth - the state, or his family. I think it is the family, without doubt.

Think of the implication if you argue otherwise. It would mean that the State owns all things, that as you live your life, you might acquire wealth but it is really 'borrowed' from the state, and when you die, the state reclaims it.

The State exists to serve OUR needs, to provide essential services. The idea that the state deserves to inherit a person's wealth is as ludicrous as saying that if I die, I must leave my money to my electric and gas utility, the plumber, the garbage collector, and everyone else who I paid for essential services.

People complain that the term 'socialist' gets thrown around too much. The concept that all wealth comes from/returns to the State is pure socialism, in its Leninist form.

By the way, taxing inheritance at 100% (or anywhere near that) would only speed up the disappearance of small businesses (often family-owned) and the takeover of big corporations in their place, like WalMart, if you force the family of someone who suddenly dies to close down his business in order to pay estate taxes.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 12):What does it mean to vote irresponsibly? Warren Buffet pays millions in taxes, yet he supports raising taxes on the wealthy. Does he vote irresponsibly?

Wealth does not imply intelligence (Britney Spears). In Buffet's case I think it's more a case of senility - not in the sense that I am against higher tax rates for the very wealthy. I think there probably should be a 50% bracket for people who earn more than a million or two dollars or so per year. But he was stupid in that his quote was going to be used to attack people much lower than that, and he played right into Obama's hands.

The fact of the matter is that if you want to really raise revenue, there is not that much to be had among the really wealthy. There just aren't enough of them to move the needle.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):
Fair share in any common endeavour is in opposition to equal share and implies that everybody pitches in according to his or her ability to do so.

Which is Marxist in nature, which we know does not work in practice.

Errr umm. Checked out on Marxism lately? Can I assist from Wiki which will do rather than the whole book AND a history of USSR, China and wherever else you think (mistakenly is or was Marxist): Dispute that the Soviet Union was Marxist

Marx defined "communism" as a classless, egalitarian and stateless society. To Marx, the notion of a communist state would have seemed an oxymoron,[38][39][40] as he defined communism as the phase reached when class society and the state had already been abolished. Once the lower stage towards communism, commonly referred to as socialism, had been established, society would develop new social relations over the course of several generations, reaching what Marx called the higher phase of communism when not only bourgeois relations but every class social relations had been abandoned. Such a development has yet to occur in any historical self-claimed socialist state.[38][39][40]

Even within the Stalinist state at its height, there were repressed[38] expressions of Marxist orthodoxy, revealed after the fall of the USSR, arguing that it had developed new class structures: those who are in government and therefore have power (sometimes referred to as the political class), and those who are not in government and do not have power, the working class. This is taken to be a different form of capitalism, in which the government, as owner of the means of production, takes on the role formerly played by the capitalist class; this arrangement is referred to as "state capitalism."[38] These statist regimes have generally followed a planned economy model without making a transition to this hypothetical final stage.[41]

Some academics such as Noam Chomsky disputed the claim that the political movements in the former Soviet Union were Marxist.[41] Communist governments have historically been characterized by state ownership of productive resources in a planned economy and sweeping campaigns of economic restructuring such as nationalization of industry and land reform (often focusing on collective farming or state farms). While they promote collective ownership of the means of production, Communist governments have been characterized by a strong state apparatus in which decisions are made by the ruling Communist Party. Dissident communists have characterized the Soviet model as state socialism or state capitalism.

Most of what you think were Marxist governments were about at close to Marxism as the US was under G W Bush (I originally typed "today" but thought under Shrub would possibly prevent you from telling us Obama too is a Marxist).

And the concept itself:The Marxian analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena — including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology — arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, of which the economic system forms the base. As the forces of production, most notably technology, improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress.

These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority who own the means of production; the bourgeoisie, and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services; the proletariat. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism oppresses the proletariat, the inevitable result being a proletarian revolution

You might need to check on how the US proletariat has been doing lately. And then let us know if you think that the developments from say 1960 to now, have been FAIR.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):The wealth was most certainly earned - perhaps not by the person who inherited it, but it was earned. Who has a better right to a person's residual wealth - the state, or his family. I think it is the family, without doubt.

We are discussing what would be a fair tax. By common definitions of fairness, it is unfair to inherit a fortune (see my argument above), and hence, I argue that it promotes fairness if there is a heritage tax of 100%. This migh violate other values besides fairness, but I cannot see how it can be considered fair if person A gets a prime A place in society while person B does not just because A was born to parents who are welathy and decide to give undeserved benefits to their offspring.

So, if you do not have any doubt that te family has the right to create unfair distributions of wealth, based on which values do you think so? Certainly not based on fairness as a value.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):Think of the implication if you argue otherwise. It would mean that the State owns all things, that as you live your life, you might acquire wealth but it is really 'borrowed' from the state, and when you die, the state reclaims it.

I fully agree that a 100% inheritance tax would have very negative side effects, which is why I would not recommend implementing it. All I am saying is that this would be fair. But fairness is not the only value that is important. So we have to consider the side effects and set tax rates in a way that balances values in an optimal fashion. But if only fairness is concerned, I argue that it would be 100%.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13): The State exists to serve OUR needs, to provide essential services. The idea that the state deserves to inherit a person's wealth is as ludicrous as saying that if I die, I must leave my money to my electric and gas utility, the plumber, the garbage collector, and everyone else who I paid for essential services.

Indeed, I fully agree. I am not arguing that the state deserves the money. All I am saying is that inheriting a fortune creates unfairness. And if we want the state to create as much fairness as possible, a 100% inheritance tax would be appropriate.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13): People complain that the term 'socialist' gets thrown around too much. The concept that all wealth comes from/returns to the State is pure socialism, in its Leninist form.

That might be the case, but that is not what I am talking about. Wealth does not come from the state. But the biased transfer of wealth from parents to children is unfair.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):By the way, taxing inheritance at 100% (or anywhere near that) would only speed up the disappearance of small businesses (often family-owned) and the takeover of big corporations in their place, like WalMart, if you force the family of someone who suddenly dies to close down his business in order to pay estate taxes.

As said before, that is the reason why I said that I think that it would be unwise to implement a 100% tax.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):The fact of the matter is that if you want to really raise revenue, there is not that much to be had among the really wealthy. There just aren't enough of them to move the needle.

True, but that's not the point. The point is shared sacrifice. Conservatives plan to balance the budget is to put almost the entire burden of cuts on the poor and middle class, while giving more tax breaks to the wealthy.

Sure, a small tax increase on the wealthy won't fix the budget and Obama has NEVER said it would. However, to use your own terms, the wealthy need to have some skin in the game and be part of the solution in fixing the budget mess. They need to feel pain, just like the poor and middle class will feel when cuts come.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 7):So if you have two people that stumble upon, let's say, $5 million in life, and one of them blows it all away in prostitutes and cocaine while another one invests it wisely in a business and creates jobs, ending up with more than $5 million, the first one gets taxed at 0% when he dies (because he blew it all up his nose and has nothing left) while the second one gets taxed at 100% (because he acted responsibly). That is your definition of "fair"? Live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse, is that what you are saying?

Well, the first one contributed $5 million to the economy. An admittedly shady part of the economy, but still even hookers, pimps and drug traffickers buy Iphones and groceries.

Drug trafficking and prostitution have a better return than most legal businesses, so it's not like those $5 million aren't growing (not on that man's hands, of course).

It's really a meaningless term. People don't have to be poor to choose their votes based on who will serve them best instead of serving the country best.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):Sure, a small tax increase on the wealthy won't fix the budget and Obama has NEVER said it would. However, to use your own terms, the wealthy need to have some skin in the game and be part of the solution in fixing the budget mess. They need to feel pain, just like the poor and middle class will feel when cuts come.

Where the idea of balancing the budget on the backs of the rich came from I have no idea - it's never been about that, only about not balancing the budget solely on the backs of the middle class and poor.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 18):Taxing everyone everyone (even the poor) would do what Obama is always harping about "shared sacrifice".

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 12):I didn't say that. I said cutting the pay/benefits of the worker and then handing that money to the CEO, is wealth transfer.

Exactly! But, as you suggested above, you never hear conservatives harping on about that kind of wealth transfer.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 4):It's always funny how conservatives are worried about the government transferring wealth, but in reality the most massive wealth transfer in history from the middle class to the wealthy class has been going on for 30 years now. As long as the wealth and income gaps grow wider, our tax system will continue to grow progressively more unfair.

Seriously? It's simple math. A flat tax rate of, say, 30% would affect a poor person more harshly than it would a rich person. Say you make $20,000 per year, you'd pay $6000 in income taxes. If, however, you make $250,000, you'd pay $75,000 in income taxes. Yes, that is substantially more, but it's not exactly difficult to live on $175,000 per year. In fact, if you make that much and cry poverty, you're doing something wrong. On the other hand, $14,000 per year isn't exactly a whole lot to live on.

Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West

25 Mir
: Because the cost of living has a minimum. If you make $25,000 a year and pay 20% in taxes, you're left with $20,000. If we assume that your minimum c

26 Klaus
: Because being forced below the living minimum by taxation is a blatant violation of human rights. Being taxed only to a fraction of one's purely disc

27 Dreadnought
: So essentially, an equal tax burden on all (by definition, fair) is undesirable, for what I grant are legitimate reasons. So we take more from the we

28 Dreadnought
: And here we have it. http://youtu.be/MwxfZ_bHHVw Warren Buffett Is Against Obama’s “Buffett Rule,” Disagrees with Obama who set the tax increas

29 EA CO AS
: Explain to me how it's somehow unfair to you or anyone else if I work my ass off to make $10 million in my lifetime and then leave it to my kids when

30 BMI727
: And none of that is bad. Transfer of wealth is not bad. If you manage to become wealthy, transfer wealth to yourself, and I do not, that is nobody's

31 Mir
: It is undesirable, but it's not fair, because such a policy would violate the principle of diminishing marginal returns. If we can get a tax policy t

32 Rabenschlag
: It gives your child an advantage that many others do not have, and there is no way how they could get it. I think people around your child could legi

33 474218
: Where in the United States Constitution and it does not mention "human rights". No one said everyone should have a equal share of the burden, I said

34 Rabenschlag
: Why don't you think it is bad that some people have substantial advantages in life that they did not earn and hence do not deserve? It creates fundam

35 Rabenschlag
: So, fairness is not an important value for you? I am sure you must agree that differences in capability that are a result of your genetic make-up, yo

36 Mir
: If you're a US citizen, living in the US is a right, not a privilege. -Mir

37 474218
: No! Everyone should be treated equality! I don't consider taxing one group at 20% and another a 35% fair. It my be a "right" I was given because wher

38 FlyPNS1
: Again, that's not the point. The point is that the rich need to feel additional pain, just like all the poor and middle class are feeling or will be

39 Arrow
: How's this for fairness in taxation: The IRS, with marching orders from the Obama administration, is now going after former Americans living in other

40 Mir
: To be more precise (since the rich aren't the only ones sucking wealth out of the country), they shouldn't be allowed to do that and then feel none o

41 AustinAllison
: Fair is a flat tax. That's the only inherently fair tax. Anything else is unfair. And that is a fact.

42 Rabenschlag
: So, if everyone should be treated equally, does that only apply for giving (taxes) or also for receiving (inheriting)? And if not: Why? What is the d